Reply to review

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating it changes live shop data and requires explicit confirmation, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. This context helps the agent understand the commitment before invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two clear sentences. The first captures the purpose, and the second provides critical behavioral context. No unnecessary exposition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite a clear purpose, the description omits important details for a mutation tool: how to obtain review IDs, any content restrictions, return format, and the platform parameter (which could be inferred but is not mentioned). The agent may miss key aspects without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 50% parameter description coverage (platform and confirmation_token have descriptions), but the tool description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. The agent must rely solely on the schema for parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Post a public seller reply') and the resource ('a product review'), with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the sibling tool 'reply_to_message', which targets messages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., reply_to_message), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.